The use of Bamboo is a very significant topic, especially right now. I am glad that you address the serious e
urprise to consumers as Wal-Mart has made several attempts to eradicate harsh feelings towards the corporation and brand as a whole. However, it does come as a surprise that Seventh Generation is joining this movement in that CEO Jeffrey Hollender (see right) has made public statements that he will never do business with Wal-Mart, or at least not until hell freezes over. While Seventh Generation products will not be sold at Wal-Mart supercenters, they will be available for purchase at these four Marketside stores. We may look at this move with some skepticism and fear, and for good reason, but I have to wonder whether it is purely cynical to question that Wal-Mart may actually be going green.
the amount of women in ranking position by forty percent. He notes that Wal-Mart's sales record from 2007 shows that they are "almost single-handily leading the switch from incandescent to energy efficient lighting", as well as have transformed the entire laundry detergent industry. For all those skeptics out there, these are no small feats. I would like to note that Hollender uses a tweaked version of Reagan's axiom "trust, but verify" as a model for this business relationship and we can rest assured he will hold true to this.
When it comes to new developments and renovation, the eventual return on investment needs to outway the costs. With the information you propose this deems true, however owners and investors will not see these returns for some time. That is where a huge drawback lies. Furthermore with the rising cost of fossil fuels, hotels will inevitably need to switch to alternative energy sources in the future, so why not now? I find the quote from Bose, “For every dollar you can add to the bottom line of a San Francisco hotel, more than $11 is added in value,” very interesting. This is definitely incentive for greener renovations, even if they will not immediately be seen. Another problem that I could see being a drawback is that state of the economy. The dark shadow looming over consumers disposable income means that there is a lot less vacationing and a lot less hotel room spending. Furthermore, with the high costs of renovation, there seems to be a lack of that extra push to get eco-friendly changes underway. Another issue that is very relevant to hotels and environmentally friendly actions is the idea of greenwashing. It is comforting to know that Bose claims that “in contract negotiations with companies, consortia and government agencies for all of their travel and meetings business, hotel operators are being asked not only to confirm that they use sustainable business practices, but to prove it by naming the awards and certifications they have earned.” It is time that we can move on to a greener world and hopefully the hotel industry will follow suit.
e in the environment and this shines through in the work they have done with their Bed and Breakfast. It seems that in order for a company, brand, or in this case lodging, to exercise authentic green practices, the brains behind the mission must genuinely have the environments best interest at heart. I find your main argument very insightful as well. Not only is green marketing a profitable tactic for marketers, it has come to the point where flaunting what you call “eco-credentials” is even more profitable. With consumer skepticism and the prospect of greenwashing seemingly everywhere it is no surprise that consumers want to know whether or not green marketers can back up their claims with legitimacy. I would like to point out that the Pinehurst Inn have every reason to be legitimately green, as you have pointed out. With the combination of tactics these owners are instilling it makes you wonder why other inns are not reaping the benefits of going green. It is environmentally friendly, cost saving in the long run, sustainable, and appealing to the modern day eco-friendly consumer. One question I would like to raise is about the rating system. The Pinehurst Inn is rated by the Wisconsin Travel Green rating system. When I looked into this it seems that it is voluntary, and as you noted “self-reporting.” Furthermore, there is a fee that one must pay in order to be rate. This seems a little bit of a skeptical source to receive a rating from, however the Pinehurst Inn holds true to what makes a hotel green. Do you think there is any reason to question the legitimacy is the credentials seem a little flaky, even if the experience at the hotel felt green?
In a previous post, I explored various techniques and strategies marketers are using to keep green initiatives a primary concern in our economy, as well as consumers' responses to these efforts. It is important to keep the environment in the minds of consumers, yet marketers need to make sure their efforts are clear and not misleading. I would like to take a deeper look at this idea with regard to the world of fashion. Fashion is a creative expression of one's view of the world and this differs from designer to designer. Many designers who envision a cleaner environment are trying to incorporate eco-friendly tactics with their fashion lines through the use of organic materials and sustainable production methods. With the fall season we all know this means one thing --the tents go up in New York and Los Angeles for Fashion Week. Fashion Week is not only the perfect way to broadcast a label's new developments; it notoriously sets the trends for upcoming seasons. And while up-and-coming designers may be more inclined to experiment with green initiatives, the prominent labels seem to be shying away from environmental efforts.
compassing passion and effort to help preserve the earth. EcoSkin is a prime example of manipulation and exploitation of the idea of "going green," and blurring the line between what is ethical and what is not. Another point that has been brought to my attention is how the animals were initially exploited. They came from, or were rented from, Animal Actors Worldwide (AAW), a full-service agency that loans out exotic animals. While their list of experience includes well known movies such as Borat, this does not legitimate the brand's environmentalism. Animals should not be exploited and used in a fashion show when the brand claims environmental conservatism; and Magsaysaysay further quotes, "Love them by leaving them in their home". The exploitation of animals is a whole other ethical topic to be discussed, but I would like to point out that this act by EcoSkin is inherently contradictory to the concept of being environmentally ethical. And due to the prestige of L.A. Fashion Week, these acts perpetuate a flawed logic that animal exploitation can be a part of an eco-friendly brand.
oll (right) and will provide my own critiques in this entry.
, yet lacks some credibility when the highest voted articles lack any commentary from their voters. Ecorazzi takes on the format of a celebrity gossip blog. It uses updated information about what is trendy in the green world, as well as posts entries featuring celebrities and their green contribution. This site is creative in design, yet there is little interactivity with the pictures and links, and the content provided lacks incentive for the user to fully engage, comment, and remain interested. Nonetheless, at face value this is an innovative and interesting site I plan on returning to. Ecofabulous is similar to Ecorazzi. This site has a more sophisticated feel, yet lacks in current information, as well as depth of content and scholarly value.This is a very well crafted and organized entry. I find your arguments both informative and intriguing. I find it very interesting that Expedia, and not individual airline companies has
decided to offer a green option. In their partnership with TerraPass, the consumer can only assume that this small extra fee makes their travels more eco-friendly. Your point about the unregulated market is very well presented and well substantiated. No consumer is to truly know where their contributions are going, expecially when going through a third agent;in this case Expedia. The tricky part about cause-marketing is that consumers are naturally skeptical as it is. So when marketers add extra fees and costs, then say it is going towards a "good cause", skepticism tends to rise and consumers are less likely to fork up the dough. You quote, "it’s hard to track how many of these programs exist, how many customers are participating, and the effectiveness of the programs". I agree with this statement and can only add that this is exactly the reason consumers have doubt. If not every flier is required to pay this extra fee, what is the true reward for the ones that do? Peace of mind? Peace of mind that they don't really know where their dollars are going? I find comfort that you end on the point by Thomas Lyon, "there are a lot of good-hearted people out there who want to do the right thing, and they haven’t known how to do it, so companies are making it easier for them". People inherently want to do the right thing; people want to help out. With more regulation and standards on their way, green marketing will eventually find a place that is comfortable for the consumer to whole-heartedly buy into. I do have a couple of question that may spike your interest. Do you think it is economically fair to make everyone pay an extra five dollars for their flight that will contribute towards carbon off-setting? Expedia could also keep the twenty-five dollar donation for those who could afford it. Furthermore do you foresee an individual airline making all of their flights green? Again, great post and I look forward to hearing more developments.
year. Marketers are more pessimistic with the state of the business world and want to focus their money and resources on more promising ways to reach consumers. If consumers do not have money to buy essentials, it is reasonable to assume they will not buy products merely to support a cause. 
While this study offers an interesting perspective into what is to come in the next year, we cannot reject that we have undergone a cultural shift towards a greener economy which will continue to effect marketing tactics. While we are experiencing a tighter budget in many facets of life, which will of-course take a toll on marketing strategies, but will not end the age of green. Chief Marketing Strategist Bob Gilbreath argues that cause-marketing “ is still what will get the news” for marketers.
This is a very inte
resting post that prompts discussion on green marketing. As far as the green marketing bubble goes, I do not think that it is ready to pop. I agree with your statement, "what consumers say and how they behave aren’t always the same". This is especially true when it comes to low involvement product categories, like toilet paper. When it comes to products such as these, consumers tend to go with brand recognition. With this idea in mind, emerging toilet paper brands who deem themselves as "green", will not compete with well recognized brands like Charmin. With regard to the idea of green-washing I feel that competition will hopefully get so high that the companies who cannot legitimize their claims will be naturally weeded out. Since so many companies are making claims for their products going green, consumers will seek out those products and brands that can back up their marketing statements. Regulation on green marketing assertions could also be more stiff. Furthermore, companies making the claims that their products are green could offer consumers some sort of proof of this. Consumers need to see what their dollar is being spent on. If a brand or company can make the claim that dollars being spent on their products are helping the environment, consumers deserve to see more results. With regard to your commentary on Whole Foods, I think in the state of the economy a high priced specialty store like whole foods is bound to take a hit. Right now, marketers need to focus on making products people will already buy more eco-friendly. Not the other way around. If marketers continue to do this, I do not think the green marketing bubble will pop.